Some thoughts about the vaccine's actual level of effectiveness

In some other countries, 40 percent, 50 percent, or even 60 percent of the people in hospitals for Covid had been vaccinated.

During the time of these studies around 70 of the overall population being looked at had been vaccinated.

First of all, isn't that interesting that those percentages seem to be so much higher than in the US? Which strongly suggests that those statistics coming from the US might not be accurate, for some reason.
But let's toss that to the side for a moment.

What does this tell us about the actual effectiveness of the vaccine?

Well first of all, it might be assumed that the older people who were more vulnerable were more likely to get the vaccine but also more likely to end up requiring hospitalisation if they contracted the virus.
But from statistics I've seen from England, that doesn't really appear to be the case. Older age groups were not much more likely to be vaccinated than younger adults.

I'm willing to be generous here and for the sake of rough estimation let's assume that the group of people as a whole who got vaccinated would have been twice as likely to require hospitalisation (if they did not get vaccinated) than everyone else.

What can we presume about the vaccine's rate of effectiveness?
(By the way, I pointed out in another thread how the vaccinated group is even slightly MORE likely to die if they did end up having to go to the hospital, so that is not even an issue here)

Doing some simple calculations

If 40 percent of those who required hospitalisation were vaccinated
0.4/0.7
1 - 0.5714
0.428
then it means that the vaccinated would be 42.8 percent less likely to get hospitalisation.

If 50 percent of those who required hospitalisation were vaccinated, then the vaccinated would be only 28.6 percent less likely to get hospitalisation

Now looking at 60 percent in the hospital having been vaccinated, but assuming the percent of the total population who got vaccinated now is 85 percent,
0.6/0.85
0.706
1-0.706
then it means the vaccinated would be 29.4 percent less likely to hospitalisation.

These numbers are not really that good.

But now remember we previously brought up that those vaccinated persons might be statistically more likely to require hospital care anyway if they get infected?

Instead of 42.8 percent, 28.6 percent, 29.4 percent, we could double that:
85.6 percent, 57.2 percent, 58.8 percent

But here's something else to consider: Isn't it reasonable to presume that, out of the population who has been vaccinated, they are very likely to be overall statistically more likely to be taking precautions and avoiding going out? Especially elderly people.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume this might roughly cancel out the effect.

These numbers of course are definitely not going to be accurate, but they are there to illustrate something.

The evidence, coming from several other countries in the world (Singapore, the United Kingdom, Israel) is seeming to indicate that the vaccine is not really so extremely effective. It's definitely not a black & white thing.

(And yes, in all fairness Singapore is using a different vaccine that is less effective)

You can still make the argument that certain groups of people, or possible people in certain situations would stand to benefit from the vaccine.
But for people to hold this idea in their head that the vaccine will protect them, that it's very unlikely they can get infected if they've had the vaccine, that does not seem to be consistent so much with the data.

I don't even think those who've had the vaccine are even 3 times less likely to contract the virus, if exposed, than the unvaccinated.

Considering this, I will ask how justified are these vaccines actually?

Supposedly the vaccine is mostly about trying to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from dying. That is exactly the sort of thing this post was looking at.

There have been very few studies directly looking at how much the vaccine prevents the spread. Individuals who have been vaccinated could still become infected and possibly spread it. That is what many scientists believe. The consensus believes they are probably less likely to spread it, but it is just not really known with much certainty. They could even be more likely to spread it if the vaccine is suppressing symptoms preventing them from knowing that they are sick.

Should we be pushing something when there is no direct science saying it is really a good idea?

 

You're right there. Practically every number you have quoted about England is wrong.

You have been shown countless times that In England, unvaccinated under 50s are eight times more likely to die from Covid than the unvaccinated. Unvaccinated over 50s are nearly twice as likely to die than the vaccinated

This is based on figures obtained during two weeks in September from hospital statistics. Over 50s are now being offered a booster dose since they got the vaccine around 6 months ago

 

60% of people being admitted to UK hospitals are unvaccinated - adviser | Reuters

Scotland and Wales have vaccinated 90% of those aged 16 and over with at least one dose, while England has reached 88% and Northern Ireland 86%.

Covid vaccine: How many people in the UK have been vaccinated so far? - BBC News

Assuming these statistics in the UK are true, from these figures one could attempt to estimate that the vaccinated are approximately 80% less likely to require admission to a hospital. Or in other words, that means the unvaccinated would only be 5 times more likely to go to the hospital than the unvaccinated.

What part of this is wrong?

 

You concluded following your figures "Should we be pushing something when there is no direct science saying it is really a good idea"

80% reduction is a huge reduction. this 80% is for the whole population including the most vulnerable group who were vaccinated six months ago hence for the recommendation of a booster for the over 50s. The reduction is greater than 80% for the under 50s who were vaccinated more recently. The Delta variant is highly transmissible and our hospitals would not cope if not for the vaccine

 

I think you are confused about what I was saying.
That was referring to spread of the virus, not the hospitalisation rates. The two are not the same thing. Hopefully you are intelligent enough that this does not have to be explained to you.

 

LOL
Shall we count the number of times you referred to "hospitalisation" in the OP or the hospitalisation figures you quoted in the OP?

 

The vaccines can be considered as a less effective treatment than what happened in the Uttar Pradesh region of India that handed out Ivermectin. With a population of 241 million they have only had 24,000+ deaths. Extrapolate that to US population numbers would mean we would have around 35,000 deaths.

 

Masks don't work, and the clot shots don't work in preventing the march of the phantom virus as measured by an abused PCR test, but they work great in making humans walking spike protein factories, and probably more.

 

the "vaccine" is working perfectly.... killing off and/or sterilizing 100's of millions of nasty formerly free people. ANd don't dare push highly effective and cheaper treatments! Our overlords need (want) the billions from the system they've created. to say nothing of the excuses to control every aspect of our lives.

 

I'm willing to bet the OP gets his information from social media which we all know fact checks everything before posting.